Skip to main content

About your Search

20130427
20130505
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
the biggest names in politics and hollywood. the featured speakers, president obama and talk show host conan o'brien. we'll have it live for you starting with the red carpet arrivals. we'll also show you some of the ctivities going around the district today. we're going to look at some of the speechers from past correspondence dinners. we'll start with 1993, that was the first year that c-span broadcasted the event, the speaker was elayne booler. >> thank you, thank you, mr. mrs. clinton. thank you for coming. i'm so grateful to have opportunity to entertain you since you have entertained me on c-span so many times. i love c-span. it is like lawmakers in their natural habitat. it is like wild kingdom but with congressman. now a debate on wheat. [laughter] trying to get my cards -- i never work with cards. this is incredible to be here. i was raised in brooklyn, new york in a lower class -- thank you. a predominantly jewish family and this room is slightly less ornate than may parents' dining room. i went to the beauty shop and got my hair trimmed and i went to the barber and had my legs shaved
. for beingso much here. let's talk about what we learned last week and president obama talking about the potential of a chemical weapons. evan mcmorris-santoro, where we add in this? why is the white house's stance significant? guest: there has been a lot of debate. the obama administration said a few months ago, they drew the proverbial red line about chemical weapons, the idea that of chemical weapons were used, they would cross the line and we would see engagement. that is what people read about that. there were reports that some chemical weapons may have been used. shortly thereafter, the white house was engaged on that and some observers felt they change the way the red line works. the white house says it was a systematic use. we're seeing a lot of discussion about persian towards what might be u.s. involvement. it's unfair to say that will happen or not. the white house is now talking about using chemical weapons and what it means for how the united states in gauges. host: the associated press has this headline -- obama's syrian caution. one of the conversations going on in con
. that is what president obama is talking about. i will continue working with congress to pursue the proposal the president put forward in his budget, a proposal that is fully paid for. today's report emphasizes that when it comes too early education, quality does matter. that quality means more than just learning number and the abc's. it means children get the nutrition and preventive care they need to stay healthy, building social and emotional skills, engaging parents to make sure they are nurturing their children's day development. over the last four years, we have pursued an historic effort to raise the bar on early education. we have had an unprecedented an incredible cooperation with the department of education. that includes the race to the top early learning challenge and a range of staffers in the head start program, including sharing best practices on training and for economic and making sure finding competition goes to the strongest sentence. as of this report shows, we have more work to do in that area. we have come a long way in the next decade. we are committed to doing what we
in to make sure you have productive work you want to find. host: let me talk about employment targets and where the administration would like to be of this point. bernstein rights today in "the new york times." how the obama maladministration want to get this employment rate to. >> their responsibility for achieving full employment rests with the administration. they want to create jobs. but it also rests with the federal reserve and that is where you really have seen unemployment targeting take place. i don't think there's anyone in the world who would say we don't want to see full employment. we don't want people who want a job not to have a job. the question is, what is full employment and that is hotly debated. it is not clear exactly what that number would be. it is not zero. there will always be people in transition or not in the labour force. is it 5%? that is extraordinarily low. is it 5.5%? is it 6%? there is a big debate about that. the federal reserve has said its unemployment target is 6.5%. that is the number where it will say they will keep interest rates low until the e
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4